The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

What are your Initial Thoughts on the Guilt or Innocence of George Zimmerman?


  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
The defense was trying to say that the natural shape of Zimmerman's head..was an injury.

:lol:

Not the way it looked to everyone else in the universe, but thanks for playing "Lets say something really stupid in order to look dumber than dog shit."

I'm sure the defense will present evidence from a hospital or doctor that says contrary right?

Or maybe they won't.

What do you think?

Why should they, the state is making their case for them.
 
You are missing my point.

Those prosecutors need a couple of ER docs as expert witnesses to show how injuries are sustained. They see people every day who have been beat up in fights and know the difference between a wound made by a cut as opposed to skin being abraded by concrete.

With all due respect, they have put on medical testimony stating that the wounds are consistant with the head striking concrete. Honestly, if it is really necessary for you to imagine a scenario where GZ uses a razor blade to self inflict injuries when witnesses were on the scene within a few seconds after the shot was fired and the police were there within 15-30 seconds and no razor blade is found on the scene or on GZ and not medical testimony is even suggested other than by yourself... well, you are admitting the weakness of the prosecutions case and complaining about them not putting on evidence that you have no factual basis for believing exists...


lol ... that's a good one. "Oh no, I shot someone. I better whip out a razor blade from my back pocket and cut myself before the cops get here. Wow, the cops are here already? That was fast. I only have time to make a few cuts."

:lol:
 
Lol. I'm on board.

Let' have it.

Doesn't his thingy say "show me"?

Nope on the bikini. Closest thing you'll get to that being shown is being on my friend list to see my album where it just shows my top portion while snorkeling. 'Sides...my avie dress is almost see thru. Use yer imagination. :lol:
 
Wrong, he is not required to prove anything. The burden is the state's alone. He need not even provide a defense if the state's case is as weak as it sounds.

Immie

Well no.

Zimmerman has admitted to killing Martin.

The state has to prove that's what occurred and that Zimmerman's story of self defense isn't accurate.

Thus far? That's what they are doing.

The Defense will get a turn to refute the case the Prosecution has put together.

Well no, the state has to prove that what happened was in fact murder. All the defense needs to do is poke holes in what the state claims happened. Basically Zimmerman only needs to get across the idea that he feared for his life, whether he proves it or not and whether or not it is true.

If an adult male is pounding my head into the concrete repeatedly, I am going to fear for my life and do everything I can to stop him. So the state needs to prove Martin was not even fighting back and was simply executed. I don't think they have proven that.

Of course, it is all up to the integrity of the jury and whether or not they hear about the threats of riots and want to prevent them at the expense of the life of an innocent man, assuming Zimmerman is innocent.

Immie

That is the problem, the state has to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin with his face and the back of his head and then shot him in the back from the front. I just don't see that working out.
 
Watching the DVR'd trial on America Live today, I'm not so sure about the outcome.

The troubling part is where the scientific guy whose name I don't remember stated that there was no DNA of Trayvon Martin's on GZ's gun. How much weight does that carry? Is it damning?

Gadawg made clear that DNA is circumstantial evidence, it has not bearing on the verdict, and carries little to no weight.
 
Well no.

Zimmerman has admitted to killing Martin.

The state has to prove that's what occurred and that Zimmerman's story of self defense isn't accurate.

Thus far? That's what they are doing.

The Defense will get a turn to refute the case the Prosecution has put together.

Well no, the state has to prove that what happened was in fact murder. All the defense needs to do is poke holes in what the state claims happened. Basically Zimmerman only needs to get across the idea that he feared for his life, whether he proves it or not and whether or not it is true.

If an adult male is pounding my head into the concrete repeatedly, I am going to fear for my life and do everything I can to stop him. So the state needs to prove Martin was not even fighting back and was simply executed. I don't think they have proven that.

Of course, it is all up to the integrity of the jury and whether or not they hear about the threats of riots and want to prevent them at the expense of the life of an innocent man, assuming Zimmerman is innocent.

Immie

There's an entire series of events that happened before Martin was murdered.

And there are a couple of version that exist.

Zimmerman's and reality.

Thus far the reality is conflicting with Zimmerman's in some very big ways.

The state has done everything but declare that Zimmerman is innocent on the front page of the New york Times, which reality do you live in?
 
The state has done a pretty good job of eviscerating Zimmerman's version of events and constructed a theory as to why and how he came to shoot an innocent kid.

The last 2 days have been extremely good for the prosecution.

in my opinion, the state has done a bang up job if handing zimmermans defense gifts on a silver platter.

Actually they haven't.

They were able to get some pretty good testimony out of some pretty hostile witnesses (Rachel and the Police) and use forensics to reconstruct what happened that night.

Additionally they've landed a devastating blow to Zimmerman's credibility to point out he lied on national tv when he said he never heard of "Stand your ground."

And did so in a very cool and calm demeanor.

You really don't get it, do you? The police are never hostile to the state, the fact that the state is treating their own witnesses, called to make their case, like they are cross examining defense witnesses proves how stupid their case is.
 
Watching the DVR'd trial on America Live today, I'm not so sure about the outcome.

The troubling part is where the scientific guy whose name I don't remember stated that there was no DNA of Trayvon Martin's on GZ's gun. How much weight does that carry? Is it damning?

Gadawg made clear that DNA is circumstantial evidence, it has not bearing on the verdict, and carries little to no weight.

Hm... I wonder if the jury will keep that in mind.
 
lol ... that's a good one. "Oh no, I shot someone. I better whip out a razor blade from my back pocket and cut myself before the cops get here. Wow, the cops are here already? That was fast. I only have time to make a few cuts."

Google Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart, just off the top of my head. It's not exactly a new idea, it's just new to you.

You don't have the good sense to quit while you are behind...do you? Does it really matter if an idea is old or new if it's ridiculous? If you're left with this kind of nonsense, NoTea...it simply points out how bad the case IS against George Zimmerman.

No, it simply points out the ineptitude of the prosecution. Unless you think OJ Simpson was innocent, too.

Let me give you some help, OLDstyle: look up Vincent Bugliosi and see what he did with Charles Manson and how he did it.

Bugliosi is in his late 70's now but he had plenty to say about the Simpson trial and I bet he's going to have some interesting commentary about this one, too.
 
Last edited:
Watching the DVR'd trial on America Live today, I'm not so sure about the outcome.

The troubling part is where the scientific guy whose name I don't remember stated that there was no DNA of Trayvon Martin's on GZ's gun. How much weight does that carry? Is it damning?

Not damning. Not even really troubeling as the expert testified under cross that weather conditions of the day could account for same.

More troubeling, but not damning was the absence of Zimmerman DNA from under Martin's finger nails.
 
Watching the DVR'd trial on America Live today, I'm not so sure about the outcome.

The troubling part is where the scientific guy whose name I don't remember stated that there was no DNA of Trayvon Martin's on GZ's gun. How much weight does that carry? Is it damning?

Not damning. Not even really troubeling as the expert testified under cross that weather conditions of the day could account for same.

More troubeling, but not damning was the absence of Zimmerman DNA from under Martin's finger nails.

The dna thing proves Zimmermans story is bullshit, but sadly he will get away with killing an unarmed innocent kid.

Sad but true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top